Ideals without Heat: Indonesia Raya and the Struggle for Independence in Malaya, 1920-1948
|
|  Yüklə 160.62 Kb.
|
Epilogue Although the anti-British and pro-Indonesian Malay nationalists were deprived of their formal organization, they never gave up their semangat perjuangan against the British. Former MNP leaders continued to provide the Malay community with their semangat perjuangan through various indirect or seemingly apolitical means. The newspaper Melayu Raya, which became the only official channel for the manifestation of semangat perjuangan among the nationalists, raised various issues to protect the cause of the Malays. With regard to social affairs, the paper concentrated on the various problems of the unfortunate Malays like housing shortage, high cost of living and unstable working conditions. The Melayu Raya also touched upon the “backward” Malay educational problems. In the newspaper, there were many references to the fate of present Malay schools, Malay teachers and the Malay national language (CO 537/7243). When the Melayu Raya was banned in January, 1951 (CO 537/7243), a few remaining members of the MNP like Asraf, Keris Mas, Tongkat Warrant, Masuri SN and Awami Sarkam managed to maintain their semangat perjuangan in a literary organization known as the Angkatan Sasterawan 50 or ASAS 50 (The 1950 Literary Generation) which was formed on August 6, 1950 with the declared aim of “cultural nationalism” (Firdaus 1985). When two new political parties – the Pan-Malayan Islamic Party or PMIP and the Partai Rakyat (People’s Party) – came into existence in 1955 under the leadership of two preeminent figures, Dr. Burhanuddin al-Helmy and Ahamd Boestamam, the diehard semangat perjuangan among the pro-Indonesian Malay nationalists, which had survived under the stringent Emergency Regulations, was encapsulated into the ideals of the two parties based principally upon anti-imperialism for “genuine independence and genuine sovereignty” of Malaya (Burhanuddin 1957). When the Federation of Malaya became an independent nation on August 31, 1957, the anti-British and pro-Indonesian Malay nationalists, who had regrouped around the political ideals of the PMIP and the Partai Rakyat, made up the parliamentary and political opposition to the UMNO, the Malayan Chinese Association or MCA and the Malayan Indian Congress or MIC in the Alliance coalition. Conclusion From the beginning of the twentieth century, new Malay intellectuals gradually emerged as a result of the Malay response to the new circumstances created by British colonial rule. By the end of the 1920s, they came into existence within Malay society as a distinctive new social group outside the traditional religious-political hierarchy. Deeply imbued with modern or Western values, the new Malay intellectuals envisioned socio-political ideals that had the greatest impact on the future of their society. In this context, the 1920s was the watershed for Malayan nation building. However, in spite of their common goals of social reform and the attainment of independence, the new Malay intellectuals were divided into two intellectual camps in line with their different social backgrounds – aristocratic and non-aristocratic. As a result, their ways and means to secure them greatly differed. In contrast to the English-educated aristocratic new intellectuals, the religious and Malay educated non-aristocratic new intellectuals who come from lower social strata possessed shallow organizational roots in Malay community and were relatively excluded from various privileges and benefits by traditional hierarchy and colonial rule. Under these distinctive conditions, and bearing a strong communal feeling in mind, they envisioned a revolutionary ideal for the future of Malaya – Indonesia Raya. They were convinced that within the greater politico-cultural entity, non-Malay threats as well as the traditional hierarchy and colonial rule would be demoted. This political ideal became clearly visible after the Kesatuan Melayu Muda, which encapsulated anti-British and pro-Indonesian sentiments was set up in 1937. To the pro-Indonesian Malay nationalists, the Japanese occupation seemed to be an opportunity to strengthen their weak prewar position. As the only anti-British Malay nationalist group, they hoped that the Japanese would take their movement seriously. Indeed, through tactical collaboration with the Japanese, the KMM leaders intended to awaken semangat perjuangan among the Malays to the point where they could demand the independence of Malaya within Indonesia Raya. However, their attempts were doomed to fail. In the first place, because of the general conservatism of Malay society, the ascendancy of the KMM in early 1942, even from the outset, did not rest on inherent support among the Malays. In the second place, the Japanese erratic policies toward the KMM greatly hampered its cause. Finally, in spite of its military training with the formation of the PETA and the KRIS, it was hardly possible for these organizations to be a cohesive and effective military force for Malay nationalist aims under the strict supervision of the MMA. The combination of all these reasons led to the KMM’s failure to further extend their organizational roots in the Malay community and to increase its strength as a nationalist force during the war period. While the UMNO amicably pursued the negotiations with the British on the Federation proposals, the MNP exerted tremendous effort to further its relatively meager support within the Malay community, hoping to change the British constitutional policy. However, the MNP dream was shattered when the Federation of Malaya was inaugurated on February 1, 1948. There were several reasons that prevented the MNP from further extending its political power in Malaya. First of all, there was the general Malay attitude toward the British. Shortly after the war, most Malays who had experienced untold sufferings under the Japanese welcomed the returning British as a secure alternative. When the savior attempted to impose the Malayan Union, the Malays vigorously protested against the Union proposals. However, as far as most of the Malays were concerned, the protest basically was not against the British but against the Union scheme, which they believed was intended to deprive the Malays of their birthright. While the UMNO leaders effectively tapped the predominant socio-political mood among the Malays for their successful negotiations with the British on the Federation proposals, the MNP leaders’ anti-British campaign was not very convincing to the conservative rakyat. Secondly, the MNP’s coalition with non-Malay organizations was very vulnerable to UMNO criticism. As long as the UMNO continued to press its diplomacy with the British, it was indispensable for the MNP to obtain the cooperation of anti-British non-Malays. However, caught in the contradiction between its principle, “Malaya for the Malays” and non-Malay political demands, the MNP failed to find any adequate response to UMNO criticism. There was no doubt that this simple campaign was very convincing to the Malays who took seriously the non-Malay threat to their birthright, impeding their attraction to the MNP. Finally, there existed an obvious ideological cleavage among the MNP leaders. Dr. Burhanuddin and other moderate MNP leaders thought that Malay youths in the API under the leadership of Ahmad Boestamam were too radical. Given the MNP’s meager support in the generally conservative political atmosphere within the Malay community, Boestamam’s approach to achieve independence through bloodshed seemed counterproductive. Nevertheless, given the revolutionary nature of MNP’s political aims and the British stand on the constitutional policy, Boestamam’s strategy would appear to be the only solution. However, while the moderate leaders of MNP faulted Boestamam for his violent rhetoric, they could not propose any specific alternative method to achieve their political ideals. In short, the political ideals themselves were revolutionary. But the heat to support them was too weak. The ultimate goal of the pro-Indonesian Malay nationalists – Indonesia Raya-- had been one of the major socio-political ideals regarding the future of Malaya since 1937. But it eventually died with the MNP’s dissolution in May 1950 in the wake of the communist armed revolt. In the meantime, the UMNO emerged as the most influential political power center in postwar Malaya. It molded Malay political life almost exclusively. Meanwhile, the former MNP leaders who regrouped around the political ideals of the PMIP and the Partai Rakyat made up the political opposition to the UMNO-MCA-MIC Alliance. How then should we reasonably evaluate the contribution of the pro-Indonesian Malay nationalists to Malayan nation-building? Although the new Malay intellectuals were divided into two different socio-political perspectives, their division did not mean they have an unbridgeable gap. Despite their different goals, the struggle of the two intellectual camps was intrinsically based upon semangat kemelayuan against non-Malay threats to Malay special rights and privileges. Thus it is fair to say that from the outset, their division was a manifestation of a political power game, the aim of which is to get the support of the Malay masses. The power game was highlighted during their protests against the Malayan Union. It was during this period that the Malay community witnessed the full bloom of semangat kemelayuan. The creation of the Malay national outlook was a crystallization of concerted efforts of the new Malay intellectuals which began in the 1920s. Furthermore, the anti-British and pro-Indonesian intellectuals were the only peninsula-wide nationalist force before the war. In addition, it was these nationalists who most aggressively awakened semangat perjuangan among the Malays during the war period. They also vigorously vied with the pro-British intellectuals to politicize the Malays during the protest against the Malayan Union. In these ways, no doubt, they contributed to the spread of the semangat kemelayuan which became a solid ground for the achievement of Malay’s independence in 1957. In conclusion, to appreciate the creation of an independent Malaya, it is necessary to examine the movement for Indonesia Raya that was launched by the anti-British and pro-Indonesian Malay nationalists. References Unpublished Official Documents (Public Record Office, London) Colonial Office CO 537/1582 Intelligence Summary (1946). CO 537/2145 Malayan Union: Reactions to Constitutional Proposals (1947). CO 537/2151 Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (1947). CO 537/2174 United Malays National Organization (1947). CO 537/2177 Indonesian Influence in Malay Peninsula (1947). CO 537/4742 Malay Nationalist Policy (1948-49). CO 537/4761 Malayan Chinese Association (1949). CO 537/7243 Malay Nationalist Party (1949). CO 889/8 Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission (1956). War Office WO 203/2967 Malaya: Resistance Movement (1945). WO 203/5302 Malaya’s Political Climate (1945-46). WO 203/5660 Malaya: Political Reports (1945-46). WO 203/6264 Future Constitution of Malaya (1946). WO 203/6314 Interrogation of Lt. Col. Fujiwara Kikan (1946). Newspapers and Periodicals Fajar Asia Majalah Guru Majlis Malayan Security Service/ Political Intelligence Journal (MSS/PIJ) Melayu Raya Pelita Malaya Syonan Shimbun Syonan Times Suara Rakyat Utusan Melayu Warta Negara Books, Articles and Theses Abdul Aziz bin Mat Ton. 1972/73. "Al-Imam Sepintas Lalu." Jernal Sejarah, Jilid XI. pp. 30-40. _________. 1972. “Gerakan Ansarul Sunnah dalam Kegiatan Kaum Muda Melaka.” Unpublished B.A. Thesis, Department of History, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
di Kota Bahru, 1900-1945.” Jernal Sejarah, Vol. XI. pp. 84-98. Abdul Hasir Haji Mahfudz. 1973. “Syed Syeikh Al-Hadi: Sasterawan dan Ulama Progresif.” Majallah Dian, Bil. 64, Tahun XII. pp.77-84. Abdul Latiff Abu Bakar. 1977. Ishak Haji Muhammad: Penulis dan Ahli Politik Sehingga 1948. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbitan Universiti Malaya. Abdullah Alwi Haji Hassan. 1980. “The Development of Islamic Education in Kelantan.” in Khoo Kay Kim (ed). Tamadun di Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Persatuan Sejarah Malaysia. pp. 190-222.
Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Abu Bakar Hamzah. 1991. Al-Imam: Its Role in Malay Society, 1906-1908. Kuala Lumpur: Pustaka Antara. Agastja, I. K. 1951. Sejarah dan Perjuangan di Malaya. Yogyakarta: Nusantara. Ahmad bin Abdullah. 1956. Kenang-Kenangan di College Tanjong Malim. An Autobiographical Sketch. Ahmad Boestamam. 1983. Lambaian dari Puncak: Memoir, 1941-1945. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbitan Mahakarya. ________. 1972. Dr. Burhanuddin: Putera Setia Melayu Raya. Kuala Lumpur Penerbitan Pustaka Kejora. Akashi, Yoji. 1980. "Japanese Occupation of Malaya: Interruption or Transformation?" in Alfred W. McCoy ed. Southeast Asia under Japanese Occupation. New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Monograph Series No.22. pp. 54-74.
College.” in Khoo Kay Kim and Mohd. Fadzil Othman eds. Pendidikan di Malaysia: Dahulu dan Sekarang. Kulala Lumpur: Persatuan Sejarah Malaysia. pp. 127-139. Arena Wati. 1980. Cerpen Zaman Jepun. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbitan Pustaka Antara. Ariffin Omar. 1993. Bangsa Melayu: Malay Concepts of Democracy and Community, 1945-1950. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Awang Had Salleh. 1974. Pelajaran dan Perguruan Melayu di Malaya Zaman British. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. _________. 1970. “Sultan Idris Training College (up to 1941).” Jurnal Pendidikan, Vol. 1, No. 1. pp. 116-136. Azali bin Baba. 1985/86. “Sejarah Ringkas Gerakan Politik Radikal Melayu Sebelum Darurat 1948.” Unpublished B.A. Thesis, Department of History, University of Malaya. Bamadhaj, Halinah. 1975. “The Impact of the Japanese Occupation of Malaya on Malay Society and Politics (1941-1945).” Unpublished M. A. Thesis, Department of History, University of Auckland. Benda, Harry (ed). 1965. Japanese Military Administration in Indonesia: Selected Documents. New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, Translation Series, No. 6.
_________. 1980. “Perjuangan Kita.” in Kamaruddin Jaafar (ed). Dr. Burhanuddin Al Helmy: Politik Melayu dan Islam. Kuala Lumpur: Yayasan Anda Sdn. Bhd. Cheah Boon Kheng. 1979. "The Japanese Occupation of Malaya, 1941-45: Ibrahim Yaacob and the Struggle for Indonesia Raya." Indonesia, 28. pp.85-120. _________. 1980. “The Social Impact of the Japanese Occupation of Malaya (1942- 1945).” in Alfred W. McCoy ed. Southeast Asia under Japanese Occupation, New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies Monograph Series, No. 22. pp. 91-124.
Firdaus Haji Abdullah. 1985. Radical Malay Politics: Its Origins and Early Development. Petaling Jaya: Pelanduk Publications (M) Sdn. Bhd. Frederick, William H. 1989. Visions and Heat: The Making of Indonesian Revolution. Athens: Ohio University Press. Goodman, Grant K. (ed). 1991. Japanese Cultural Policies in Southeast Asia during World War 2. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Ibrahim Yaacob. 1957. Sekitar Malaya Merdeka. Jakarta: Kesatuan Malaya Merdeka. _________. 1941. Melihat Tanah Air. Kota Bahru. Kamaruddin Jaafar (ed). 1980. Dr. Burhanuddin Al Helmy: Politik dan Islam. Kuala Lumpur: Yayasan Anda Sdn. Bhd Kamaruzzaman A. Kadir. 1985. “Nasionalisme dan Kesusasteraan Melayu Moden” in Muzium Negara dan Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (eds). Nasionalisme dalam Persuratan. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbitan Adabi Sdn. Bhd. Khong Kim Hoong. 1984. Merdeka!: British Rule and the Struggle for Independence in Malaya, 1945-1957. Petaling Jaya: Institute for Social Analysis. Khoo Kay Kim. 1974. "Malay Society, 1874-1920s." Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. V, No. 2 . pp.179-198.
Vol.1, No. 1. pp.167-192. ________. 1991. Malay Society: Transformation and Democratisation. Petaling Jaya: Pelanduk Publications. Lau, Albert. 1991. The Malayan Union Controversy, 1942-1948. Singapore: Oxford University Press. Lebra, Joyce C. 1977. Japanese-Trained Army in Southeast Asia. New York: Columbia University Press. Mas Hassan Salleh. 1983/84. “Pengasuh Majalah Terwal di Kelantan Satu Tinjauan.” Unpublished B. A. Thesis, Department of History, University of Malaya. Milner, Anthony. 1995. The Invention of Politics in Colonial Malaya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ongkili, James P. 1986. Nation-Building in Malaysia, 1946-1974. Singapore: Oxford University Press. Radcliffe, David J. 1970. “Education and Cultural Change among the Malays, 1900- 1940.” Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of History, University of Wisconsin.
B. A. Thesis, Department of History, University of Malaya, Singapore. Roff, William R. 1967. The Origins of Malay Nationalism. New Haven: Yale University Press.
_________. 1970. “Indonesian and Malay Students in Cairo in the 1920’s.” Indonesia, 9. pp. 73-88. _________. 1962. “Kaum Muda – Kaum Tua: Innovation and Reaction amongst the Malays, 1900-1941.” in K. G. Tregonning (ed). Papers on Malayan History. Singapore: Journal of South-East Asian History. pp. 162-192. Serikonah binti Kaslain. 1988/89. “Ibrahim Yaacob: Peranannya dalam Kegiatan Politik Sayap Kiri di Tanah Melayu Sehingga Tahun 1945.” Unpublished B. A. Thesis, Department of History, University of Malaya. Stockwell, A. J. 1979. British Policy and Malay Politics during the Malayan Union Experiment, 1942-1948. Kuala Lumpur: MBRAS Monograph Series No. 9. Yahaya Ismail. 1969. Patah Sayap Terbang Jua. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbitan Utusan Melayu Berhad.
Nationalism, 1922-38." Journal of Historical Society. pp. 1-11. |